State of Mysore vs Shivappa
Facts in Detail
Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Mysore. A complaint was lodged against him by an individual named Machwe of Kurdiwadi, alleging misconduct. Following this, an investigation was conducted by Inspector Majumdar of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), who examined several witnesses and recorded their statements. Based on his findings, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Belgaum, initiated disciplinary proceedings against Shivappa, framing six charges of misconduct.
Shivappa denied all charges, and a departmental inquiry was conducted on November 4, 1954. As per Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual, witnesses who had previously provided statements were recalled, and their prior statements were read out in the presence of Shivappa. He was given an opportunity to cross-examine them. After evaluating the evidence, the Deputy Superintendent of Police found all charges to be proven and initially imposed a penalty of reducing his salary from ₹125 to ₹120 per month for two years.
However, upon appeal, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police, Belgaum, not only dismissed Shivappa’s appeal but also issued a show cause notice regarding his dismissal. After reviewing his explanation, the DIG enhanced the penalty to dismissal from service on July 5, 1956.
Shivappa appealed against this dismissal to the Government of Bombay, which was later transferred to the Government of Mysore under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, but his appeal was rejected on August 31, 1957. He then approached the High Court of Mysore, filing a writ petition challenging his dismissal, arguing that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice. The High Court ruled in his favor, setting aside the dismissal. The State of Mysore then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether the departmental inquiry conducted against Shivappa violated principles of natural justice.
2. Whether Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual, which allowed the use of prior statements of witnesses instead of fresh testimony, was legally valid.
3. Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the authority to enhance the penalty from salary reduction to dismissal.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the dismissal order.
Relevant Articles and Laws
1. Article 311 of the Constitution of India – Protection of civil servants from arbitrary dismissal.
2. Principles of Natural Justice – Right to a fair hearing and cross-examination of evidence.
3. Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual – Procedure for conducting disciplinary inquiries in the police department.
Judgment
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and upheld the dismissal of Shivappa, ruling that:
1. Departmental inquiries do not need to follow strict court-like procedures. It is sufficient if the accused officer is given an opportunity to know and challenge the evidence against him.
2. The inquiry was conducted fairly, and the principles of natural justice were not violated. Witnesses' prior statements were read in Shivappa’s presence, and he was given a chance to cross-examine them.
3. Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual is not unconstitutional. The practice of using prior recorded statements in departmental inquiries does not violate natural justice, provided the accused is allowed cross-examination.
4. The High Court erred in setting aside the dismissal order. The Supreme Court ruled that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was within his authority to enhance the penalty, provided a show-cause notice was issued (which had been done in this case).
However, the Court remanded the case back to the High Court for reconsideration of whether the DIG had the legal authority to enhance the punishment from salary reduction to dismissal.
Comments